Reporters Left Hanging

Adam Gaffin at Universal Hub and Dan Kennedy* each report today on the SJC's decision in Fustolo v. Hollander, SJC No. 10485. If you've spent time with me, or read this blog, you probably know that I have a genetic inclination toward a broad interpretation of the First Amendment, especially as it relates to the press. But the decision in the Fustolo case feels right to me.

The issue in the case is whether a person who writes an objective news story is petitioning the government. If she is, the case against her would probably be dismissed in its earliest stages and she would be awarded her attorneys' fees. I agree that the statute is not as artfully crafted as we might like it to be. Especially on this front. But it protects petitioning. A reporter who objectively provides citizens with information about an issue of public concern is performing a valuable service in our democracy. She may be providing information that others use to petition. But she's not petitioning. Which is what the statute protects.

So the most important sentence in the opinion, to me, pops up early on: "she expressly stated in her affidavit that in writing all her articles, she was 'always careful to present an objective description of the subject matter, including the positions of both sides where applicable,' and that while she had personal views on the issues she covered, 'they were not reflected in the articles I wrote.'"

Again: not petitioning. No matter what you think of the plaintiff, no matter what you think of the press, if you're not presenting personal views you just aren't petitioning.

*I can't resist noting that Mr. Kennedy links in his post to an affidavit that he was paid, presumably by Ms. Hollander to the submit to the Court. As with just about everything he writes, it's persuasive and beautifully written. But I'm not so sure it's a particularly helpful document to file in a civil dispute to which he's not a party.

SJC Tackles Fee Application; Subtle Sausage-Like Aroma Sniffed At Adams Courthouse

If you litigate, chances are that at some point in your career you'll submit to a court (or oppose) an application for attorneys' fees. If you do business, chances are that some point you'll have to retain an attorney to fight like pit bull on your behalf. Either way, you should take a few minutes and read Haddad v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., SJC No. 10261A., decided last week.

It's all here: how competent and careful attorneys bill their time, the degree of attention with which lawyers pick over bills submitted by their prevailing opponents, how courts do their best to reach rough justice and make both sides feel like they've won (or lost). After reading it, you may feel like you need to take a shower. Or, if you're like me, you might revel for a moment in the messiness of our very public legal system.

Charlie Baker Is Licking His Chops Somewhere (Or Should Be)

Law-and-order types in the legislature -- and law-and-order types who want to be in the legislature but aren't right now -- should take a look at the Supreme Judicial Court's opinion today in Souza v. Sheriff of Bristol County, No. SJC 10508, helpfully reproduced by Adam Gaffin at Universal Hub.

The Court affirmed the trial court's determination that the "sheriff lacked authority to impose the cost of care, medical care, haircut, and GED fees" on inmates. But it didn't hold that such fees were unconstitutional. No -- just that the legislature hasn't authorized the sheriff to collect them. If there *isn't* some diligent staffer drafting a bill at this very moment, I'd be a bit surprised.

People And Guns Killing Each Other

You may remember this post from a few months ago about Bristol County's effort to argue that possession of an unlicensed gun entitles the district attorney to hold offenders without bail pending trial. A Superior Court judge didn't buy the argument. Neither did the SJC, as it revealed yesterday in Commonwealth v. Young, No. SJC-10147.

The question, again, is whether unlawfully carrying a gun is a "felony that by its nature involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person of another may result . . . ." Four of the five justices answer in the negative. They write that the crime of unlawful possession is "passive and victimless." In support of this argument, they persuasively tell us that "the motive of an unlicensed possessor is totally irrelevant to criminal liability . . . ." At the end of the same paragraph, they sort of go off the cliff, though: they tells us that a person who is lawfully possessing a gun might use it for an unlawful purpose. Maybe the point of this digression was edited out. Maybe I'm dense. I'm not seeing the significance of that.

Justice Cowin dissents. And her dissent is the more interesting of the two opinions. She makes it quite clear how she feels about all of this. She says:

• The majority's "conclusion may well come as a surprise to those escalating numbers who are victimized, or who have observed others victimized, by the use of unlawfully possessed firearms, as well as to those whose reading of the daily newspaper communicates the stunning social costs of our failure to address seriously the problems associated with the alarmingly increasing use of such weapons."
• "The court does not address effectively either the obvious relationship between unlicensed firearms and their use in violent behavior or the alarming proliferation of such weapons and their use in antisocial activity. Instead, the court resorts to a most subtle distinction between possession of an unlicensed firearm and the use of that firearm. Ante at. Reduced to its minimum, that is simply a reiteration of the tired slogan that 'guns don't kill people, people do.' We know this to be a dangerous oversimplification. The fact is that people kill people with guns, and in a substantial number of cases those guns are unlicensed."
• "[A] fair reading of the statute would reject the pretense that a firearm is some neutral piece of equipment that is harmless in and of itself, and would recognize at a minimum the deadly sequence that so often follows on the possession of an unlicensed firearm."

The prose is pretty compelling. The certitude of the dissent, however, doesn't quite work. Because this is a tough issue. "Try as I might," Justice Cowin writes, "I cannot understand how possession of a firearm in violation of applicable licensing law can constitute anything other than a substantial risk that the firearm will be used to effect 'physical force against the person of another.'" That's a candid admission of where she's coming from.

But then Justice Cowin says: "When a handgun or automatic weapon is involved, the purpose of the firearm is to injure or kill; there is no other reason for that weapon's existence." In Justice Cowin's analysis, it looks like a person who lets her registration lapse on a handgun that never leaves her house and is used entirely for self defense in the event all hell breaks loose would have to deal with defending herself at a dangerousness hearing. And that doesn't feel right.

Part of the problem here is the squishy language of the statute. A "substantial risk"? That physical force "may result"? That can mean anything. And when you're talking about taking away a person's freedom, that can't be okay.

A rather hilarious final point is found in Footnote 13 of the majority's opinion: "We note that this case does not require us to decide whether the possession of a pipe bomb, silencer, sawed-off shotgun, or other instrumentality that is generally associated with violence and has little socially useful value, constitutes a predicate offense." That sentence would have made sense if the Court had left out two word: "pipe" and "bomb". A guy with a pipe bomb is dangerous. Period. End of discussion.

Andover Student Enables Confirmation Of Common Sense

The SJC's decision that being on the high school swim team isn't a constitutionally protected property interest shouldn't surprise anyone. The case is Mancuso v. Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletics Ass'n, SJC No. 10151.

What's surprising is that two states -- Kansas and New Hampshire -- have held that participating in interscholastic sports is a protected property interest. Massachusetts joins California, Illinois, and Pennsylvania among those states that disagree.

The Commonwealth Beats Back Rampaging Visigoths

And by "rampaging Visigoths", we mean Capital One Bank. The case is Capital One Bank v. Commissioner of Revenue, SJC No. 10105.

The essence of the bank's argument was that it shouldn't have to pay excise taxes in Massachusetts because it doesn't have a physical presence or any employees here. The bank argued that in the absence of a physical presence in Massachusetts, imposing the tax would violate the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. The commerce clause constrains state regulation of interstate commerce, while at the same time giving Congress insanely broad powers.*

Capital One did not persuade the Court. In a unanimous opinion, the SJC swept aside seemingly pertinent U.S. Supreme Court precedent because sales and use taxes differ from the excise taxes the Commonwealth sought to impose here. The main difference, says the Court, is that the bank only has to pay the excise tax once a year. But that argument, explored in footnote 17 is a bit tough to follow.

What's really going on here? The Court found it compelling that about 450,000 people had Capital One cards as of 1998, at which point Capital One derived about $60 million in income (fees, interest and penalties) from Massachusetts residents. That was enough for the Court to conclude that Capital One's activities had a "substantial nexus" with Massachusetts.

There appears to be about $2 million for the Commonwealth's coffers at stake here. Think we might be able to use that money for something?

*Though not as broad as, say, thirty years ago.

New Bedford, Guns & Dangerousness

We learn from this morning's Boston Globe that there's some concern about the Bristol County district attorney's practice of putting people who illegally carry weapons in jail pending trial. And when the concern emanates from Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, the issue deserves some consideration.

The details from the Globe story are sketchy. The statute in question is G.L. c. 276 s. 58A, but the Globe doesn't tell us that. Section 58A allows prosecutors to ask district court judges to detain defendants before trial if the person is accused of:

a felony offense that has as an element of the offense the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another, or any other felony that by its nature involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person of another may result, including the crime of burglary and arson whether or not a person has been placed at risk thereof . . . .

The article states as a factual proposition that "[t]he state law that established dangerousness hearings was enacted in 1994 to combat domestic violence after several defendants free on bail killed their wives or girlfriends."

Is that true, though?

If it is true, then defendants who are simply caught with illegal guns have a compelling argument to make. If, however, the statute was enacted to protect the general public from violent crime (including, of course, domestic violence) perpetrated by defendants out on bail, generally, the defendants here have a less strong argument.

The defendants want the core question to be whether a person carrying an unlicensed gun is dangerous per se. Because the answer to this is probably not.* If Bristol County and C. Samuel Sutter are smart, they'll make the core question whether dangerous people carrying unlicensed guns can be detained pending trial. The answer to this has to be yes. This is example number ten zillion showing that it's important to be the one framing the issues in a case, whether you're in a small claims session or the United States Supreme Court.

Remember too that prosecutors must prove that the defendants in question (197 alone in Bristol County in the last two years, of which 141 were detained) are dangerous. They don't do so in a vacuum. There are hearings. Defendants are represented by their own lawyers.

The article doesn't provide the slightest indication as to whether this policy is working from an objective standpoint, whether gun-related crime is down in New Bedford and Fall River over the last two years. This apparently was not an important enough detail for John R. Ellement or Jonathan Saltzman to tell us about it. Or maybe it was in a draft and it was a casualty of the shrinking news hole. A quick scan of the Google indicates that crime in New Bedford is down from two years ago, but up over last year. So a mixed bag.

Overarching point: there's some question as to whether current laws regulating gun possession are even constitutional anymore.** But until that gets resolved, or the Heller case is overturned, expect to see a lot of hand-wringing about issues like this.

UPDATE: A helpful commenter points us to this article, which indicates that the policy is working.

*But only probably.

**Before you say "Oh no there isn't", ask yourself whether the Supreme Court has explicitly ruled on this issue. Not posited certain reasonable restrictions where those restrictions weren't actually under consideration. No. Actually ruled on the issue. So, yeah, there's some question as to whether laws regulating gun possession are constitutional.

Light Cigarettes Are Bad For You Too Dept.

The United States Supreme Court issued its opinion today in Altria Group v. Good, No. 07-562.* The Court held that the plaintiffs' fraud claims against the makers of "light" cigarettes were not preempted by a federal cigarette labeling law. In other words, people can sue tobacco companies for claiming that light cigarettes pose fewer health risks.** Justice Kennedy swung this case to the left.

Though the plaintiffs in this case are from Maine, Massachusetts plays a supporting role.

One of the key precedents the majority had to find its way around is Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001). That case concerned Attorney General Tom Reilly's attempt to regulate cigarette advertising. The Supreme Court held that this is a job for the federal government, not the states. In today's decision, the majority states that the Lorillard case is distinguishable because it involved state regulation and this involves a private plaintiffs' common law claims.

We have one of these light cigarette cases pending in Massachusetts right now, Aspinall v. Philip Morris, SJC No. 9981. The SJC put it on hold until the Altria case was decided. So we'll see what happens there.

*As of now, this link loads v-e-r-y slowly.
**Feel free to be totally outraged by this or not.

SJC Rules On Subprime Mortgage Chaos

One of the mortgage implosion's interesting characteristics is how commentators have found it difficult to allocate blame. Some blame the borrowers, since they should have known better. Some blame the lenders, since they should have known better. And some blame real estate agents for marketing properties to people who couldn't afford to buy them.

Today the SJC adventures into this murk in Commonwealth v. Fremont Investment & Loan, No. SJC 10258. The decision is long-ish. The facts are complicated. The procedural elements are a bit different, since this an enforcement action by the Commonwealth.

But everything flows from this conclusion by the Court: "it was unreasonable, and unfair to the borrower, for Fremont to structure its loans on . . . unsupportable optimism."

Expect much animated debate -- about personal responsibility, unfair business practices, and the propriety of hope -- to ensue.

Does Johnny Damon Wish He Worked At Jiffy Lube?

Back when George Steinbrenner was Yankee overlord, he had this facial hair/hair length rule. No beards. No long hair. Whether the rule survives Steinbrenner's recently confirmed departure from the scene remains an open question.

What we learn from Brown v. F.L. Roberts & Co., Inc., No. SJC-10155, however, is that if Steinbrenner ran a Jiffy Lube in Hadley, his long/facial hair rule might cause him some legal problems with Rastafarians.

But then if Steinbrenner was Jiffy Lube overlord, a lot of us (as opposed to just Rastafarians) would think that Jiffy Lube was evil. Which would be bad for business.

The Outer Reaches

Did you know that it's illegal for a Massachusetts tavern to serve alcohol to an intoxicated person? That's what G.L. c. 138, § 69 says. The statute plays a supporting role in Justice Cordy's concurrence today in Commerce Ins. Co. v. Ultimate Livery Serv., Inc., SJC No. 10149.

So now you know that (whether you believe/agree with it or not is your own business).

The decision is more interesting than all that, though, because it delivers us to the way-outer penumbra of negligence liability. The Court reverses a trial judge and holds that a livery service can be liable if it drops off a drunk person, has reason to think that the drunk person is going to get in a car and drive somewhere, and said drunk person does just that and causes harm.

This is a very hard call. Any time you see a court state that its "finding of possible liability in this case is limited to the facts described above", you can bet there's some discomfort with the ramifications of the holding. And you can bet that blue-faced law students will argue this issue into the ground for years to come.

Conservative Win In The SJC

Commonwealth v. Santiago, SJC No. 10117, is significant insomuch as it is a decision by the highest court in Massachusetts about search warrants. The issue is whether the 4th Amendment requires police to knock when they know their target has a BB gun and pit bulls. The majority held that the 4th Amendment does not require police to knock.

But what is far more interesting is that this is the first case since Justice Botsford joined the Court in which the conservative-leaning wing of the Court can claim a clear victory. Chief Justice Marshall, Justice Ireland, and Justice Botsford all dissented in this case. And dissents are a relative rarity in the SJC. Dissents by any of those three justices are very, very rare.

For those who care, this probably doesn't portend a massive shift rightward by our high court. But it does remind us that yes, there are some more conservative justices sitting on the SJC and every now and then they're going to have enough votes to win. This isn't necessarily bad news for those of us who lean left. It's just what a healty justice system looks like.

Dept. Of Maybe Understandable Shamelessness

It's been a good week for the excessive fines clause in the 8th Amendment. In Maher v. Retirement Bd. of Quincy, No. SJC 10182, the Supreme Judicial Court determined that the clause did not bar forfeiture of the former Quincy plumbing and gas inspector's pension. The amount of the forfeiture? $576,000.

The inspector broke into the office where Quincy's personnell files were stored and stole a portion of his own file. It seems there were some things in that file that Mr. Maher didn't want Quincy's new mayor to know when he was deciding whether to keep Mr. Maher in his inspector post.

Mr. Maher pled guilty to breaking and entering etc. in July 2003. The following month, the Quincy retirement board commenced an administrative proceeding to determine whether Mr. Maher would have to forfeit his retirement allowance. In December 2003, the board informed him of the bad news.

He sued. And made the shameless but not necessarily frivolous argument that the forfeiture was an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment. With more than a half a million dollars on the line, can you really blame him?

Suffolk County Sherriff Weirdness Update Number Two

You may remember several months ago a weird case involving a lease and the Suffolk County Sheriff's office. The idea was that the lease wasn't enforceable because the auditor had approved the lease but not issued a document certifying that there were funds available to make rent payments. There was even a comment, probably by someone involved in the case, that included the landlord being derivatively "hoist by its own petard."

Well, today in Bradston Associates, LLC v. County Sheriff's Department, No. SJC 10139, the SJC issued its own decision in the case. It held, contrary to the Appeals Court, that the lease was enforceable even accounting for the auditor's bizarre certification.

"To hold otherwise," the Court stated, "would sacrifice substance to form and perpetrate an unfairness . . . ." Petard, consider yourself unhoisted.

Loss Of A Less Than Even Chance

The SJC expanded medical malpractice liability today. The significance of the expansion remains to be seen.

In Matsuyama v. Birnbaum, SJC No. 9964, the Court holds that a patient whose chances of survival decrease from less than fifty percent to something less than that has suffered a compensable injury. This is a tough problem, and whether it challenges a lot of notions about tort law probably depends on how you feel about tort law as a general matter. If you have no thoughts about tort law as a general matter, you are either (a) sane, (b) not a lawyer, or (c) both.

But the logical problem, the conundrum, boils down to this: (1) you are more likely than not to die because of a certain medical condition; (2) a doctor is negligent in her treatment of you; (3) because of that negligence, it becomes even more likely that you'll die. In other words, the doctor's negligence itself hasn't caused the person to die. The SJC considers this issue in the context of someone who has passed away, but expressly leaves open the possibility that this claim can be pursued by a person who is still alive. See n. 33. Another interesting question is whether this theory would cover a plaintiff whose chance of survival decreased, but only by a small amount. The Court outlines a five step process for calculating damages, but you probably haven't seen the last of that issue.

The health care sector is, um, a bit of a big deal in Massachusetts. And the presence here of some of best medical minds on the planet means that a lot of very sick people come seeking help. Whatever you think of the result, it must be acknowledged that this case will affect the willingness of practitioners to pursue innovative solutions. And that's not a good thing.

Thrown To The Dogs, Er, The Voters

You may remember that eight years ago, voters in the Commonwealth narrowly defeated an initiative to ban dog racing here. Some folks who like dogs tried to place a similar initiative on the ballot in 2006. In response, some folks who like dogs, but especially when they're chasing a mechanical lure and running really fast, sued and got that initiative stricken from the ballot.

The people who like dogs as a general matter tried to get another initiative on the ballot this year. In response, the people who like dogs that chase mechanical lures sued again to keep the initiative off the ballot. Today in Carney v. Attorney General, SJC No. 10158, the SJC ruled for the people who like dogs as a general matter.

So we get to vote on dog racing this fall. Suggestion: let's just flip a coin and then have the people on each side of the issue donate the money they would have spent on consultants, mail, and advertising to nonprofits that help low-income kids in Revere (or Lynn or Chelsea or Everett, for that matter).

A Pesky Claim

With some frequency, enterprising plaintiffs include in their complaints claims for violations of the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act. The Act provides a cause of action when someone -- anyone: government, civilian, whatever -- interferes with another person's exercise of his or her constitutional rights. The SJC has been quite clear that the Act does not create a "vast constitutional tort", but it sort of, well, does just that.

Yesterday, in Kennie v. Natural Resource Dept. of Dennis, SJC-10052, the SJC reversed a trial court's summary judgment dismissal of a claim under the Act. The Act requires a plaintiff to establish that the interference with the constitutional right have been carried out by means of physical threats, physical intimidation, or coercion (which need not be physical). It's this last prong that makes claims under the Act so pesky.

Kicking claims like the one in this case to the jury gives plaintiffs a pretty formidable weapon. We each have an expansive collection of constitutional rights. And there are an expansive number of ways in which another person could interfere with those rights via moral or economic coercion. Most civil complaints filed in the Commonwealth probably include a claim for violation of the unfair business practices statute, Chapter 93A. Might we be entering an era where plaintiffs also, as a matter of course, also include claims for violation of the Civil Rights Act? Time will tell.

UPDATE: HT BB.

A Tough Call

Today, in Sheriff of Suffolk County v. Jail Officers & Employees of Suffolk County, SJC No. 9974, the SJC shows why being a judge can be a really hard job. At issue were two competing public policies: our preference for letting arbitration awards stand without judicial interference vs. our preference for employing jail officers who don't allegedly enable other jail officers to beat the tar out of inmates.

The problem the Court faced was that the arbitrator's finding as to whether the officer in question had actually enabled other officers to assault an inmate and then impeded the ensuing investigation were "far from a model of clarity." The arbitrator had let the officer in question come back to work after a suspension, which prompted the Sheriff to ask the Superior Court to set aside the arbitrator's decision. Complicating matters further, the arbitrator passed away while the case was pending on appeal.

The Court's decision is refreshingly short and self-aware. It holds that it can't figure out what the arbitrator decided, that it would impractical to send the case back to a new arbitrator, and so it lets the original award stand. But the Court also makes it clear that "where a jail officer actually witnesses fellow officers assault an individual who is held in the sheriff's custody, and then lies about this fact and files false reports that memorialize the falsity, we have little doubt that established public policy would condemn such conduct and would require the discharge of such an officer." This is a tough balance to have struck. And it's bound to make everyone a little bit unhappy.

Ford Gets Away With . . . Well . . . Nothing, Actually

The SJC issued a fascinating consumer protection decision today, Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co., SJC No. 10059. The plaintiffs alleged that Ford had violated the Commonwealth's consumer protection law, known as Chapter 93A. They alleged that door latches on certain Ford models were defective when subjected to government-mandated testing. This ended up to be incorrect. And the plaintiffs did not allege they'd been hurt by the supposed defect.

Not surprisingly, the plaintiffs lost.

The reasonably groundbreaking aspect of this case is that it happened at a very early procedural stage. The SJC has now adopted the U.S. Supreme Court's new standard for dismissing complaints on Rule 12 motions, discussed earlier here. Supporters of this approach say that it's protecting defendants who have not done anything wrong from having to pay significant legal fees and engage in expensive discovery. The competing view is that courts are moving away from the simple notice pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and injecting unnecessary layers of procedural technicality into the process.

It's a close call.

Two Lessons

Keep your promises. And read the contract. That's what we learn from NPS, LLC v. Minihane, SJC No. 10134, which the SJC handed down today.

Will this alleviate some of the sting from losing the Super Bowl? Hey, every little bit helps. And a win is a win.

**Disclosure: A few years ago, I was an insignificant member of a team of lawyers representing the plaintiff in this case.